You are on page 1of 17

Formal fallacies[edit]

Main article: Formal fallacy


A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form.[1] All formal
fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

Anecdotal fallacy - using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of


sound reasoning or compelling evidence.

Appeal to probability is a statement that takes something for granted because it


would probably be the case (or might be the case).[2][3]

Argument from fallacy assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is


fallacious, then the conclusion is false.[4]

Base rate fallacy making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities,


without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[5]

Conjunction fallacy assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple


conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them. [6]

Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) the substitution of identical


designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.[7]

Unwarranted assumption fallacy - The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is

committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or


explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false these premises are usually suppressed or vaguely written. An assumption is also
unwarranted when it is true but does not apply in the given context.
Propositional fallacies[edit]
A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a
compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the
relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only
if>, <if and only if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not
guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not
logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
Types of Propositional fallacies:

Affirming a disjunct concluded that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be


false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.[8]

Affirming the consequent the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to


be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.[8]

Denying the antecedent the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to


be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.[8]
Quantification fallacies[edit]

A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in
contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of Quantification fallacies:
Existential fallacy an argument has a universal premise and a particular
conclusion.[9]
Formal syllogistic fallacies[edit]

Syllogistic fallacies logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) when a


categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.[9]

Fallacy of exclusive premises a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both


of its premises are negative.[9]

Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) a categorical syllogism that has four
terms.[10]

Illicit major a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is
not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.[9]

Illicit minor a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not
distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.[9]

Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) when a


categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises. [9]

Fallacy of the undistributed middle the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not
distributed.[11]

Informal fallacies[edit]
Main article: Informal fallacy
Informal fallacies arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural
(formal) flaws and usually require examination of the argument's content.[12]

Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) dismissing a claim as absurd


without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[13]

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam)


assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or
vice versa.[14]

Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) I


cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.[15][16]

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum) signifies that it has been


discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.[17][18]

Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) where the conclusion is based on


the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.[19][20]

Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the


mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) assuming that the compromise between
two positions is always correct.[21]

Argumentum ad hominem the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at


your opponent.

ergo decedo where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying


reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue
altogether.

Argumentum verbosium See Proof by verbosity, below.

Begging the question (petitio principii) providing what is essentially the conclusion
of the argument as a premise.[22][23][24][25]

(shifting the) Burden of proof (see onus probandi) I need not prove my claim,
you must prove it is false.

Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) when the reasoner begins with what
he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

Circular cause and consequence where the consequence of the phenomenon is


claimed to be its root cause.

Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of
the heap, bald man fallacy) improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[26]

Correlative-based fallacies

Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) a faulty assumption
that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[27]

Suppressed correlative where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative


is made impossible.[28]

Equivocation the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by
glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).[29]

Ambiguous middle term a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle


term is equivocated.[30]

Ecological fallacy inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based
solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals
belong.[31]

Etymological fallacy which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word
or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.[32]

Fallacy of accent a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a
sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress, or when, in a written
passage, it's left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on.

Fallacy of composition assuming that something true of part of a whole must also
be true of the whole.[33]

Fallacy of division assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all
or some of its parts.[34]

False attribution an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified,


biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) refers to the selective excerpting


of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended
meaning.[35]

False authority (single authority) using an expert of dubious credentials or using


only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) two


alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there
are more.[36]

False equivalence describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence,


when in fact there is none.

Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded


question, plurium interrogationum) someone asks a question that presupposes
something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This
fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those
that serve the questioner's agenda.

Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[37]) it is assumed that there is


one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a
number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Furtive fallacy outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of
decision makers.

Gambler's fallacy the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect
the likelihood of another random event. If a fair coin lands on heads 10 times in a
row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails"
is incorrect.[38]

Hedging using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of
them later.

Historian's fallacy occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past
viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those
subsequently analyzing the decision.[39] (Not to be confused with presentism, which
is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral
standards, are projected into the past.)

Homunculus fallacy where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes


leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature
of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept
itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as
something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely
explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).[40]

Inflation of conflict The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point,


so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field
is put to question.[41]

If-by-whiskey an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that
are selectively emotionally sensitive.

Incomplete comparison in which insufficient information is provided to make a


complete comparison.

Inconsistent comparison where different methods of comparison are used, leaving


one with a false impression of the whole comparison.

Intentionality fallacy the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression


must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication
originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received as a blatant allegory must
necessarily not be regarded as such if the author intended it not to be so.) [42]

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) an argument that may in
itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[43]

Kettle logic using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.

Ludic fallacy the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences
can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown
unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.[44]

Moral high ground fallacy in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an


attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.

Moralistic fallacy inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in


violation of factvalue distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance
of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined
below.

Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) argument in which evidence presented in
response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is
demanded.

Naturalistic fallacy inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual


premises[45] in violation of factvalue distinction. For instance,
inferring ought from is (sometimes referred to as the is-ought fallacy) is an instance
of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense as defined in the
section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic
fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.

Naturalistic fallacy fallacy[46] (anti-naturalistic fallacy[47]) inferring impossibility to


infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought
fallacy mentioned above. For instance, is
does imply ought
for
any proposition

, although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such

an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is an instance of argument from


fallacy.

Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) when solutions to problems are rejected
because they are not perfect.

Onus probandi from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat"
the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who
denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad
ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the
assertion.

Petitio principii see begging the question.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty
cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) X happened,
then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in
this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster.[48]

Proof by assertion a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.

Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) submission of


others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its
intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)

Prosecutor's fallacy a low probability of false matches does not mean a low
probability of some false match being found.

Proving too much - using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used
more generally to reach an absurd conclusion.

Psychologist's fallacy an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own


perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.

Red herring a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic
at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak
to.[49]

Referential fallacy[50] assuming all words refer to existing things and that the
meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words
possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from
how we use them.

Regression fallacy ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to
account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.

Reification (hypostatization) a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract


belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or
physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something
that is not a real thing, but merely an idea.

Retrospective determinism the argument that because some event has occurred,
its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.

Shotgun argumentation the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for
their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See
"Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)

Special pleading where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an


exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.

Wrong direction cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect
and vice versa.[51]
Faulty generalizations[edit]

Faulty generalizations reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of


relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions
yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.

Accident an exception to a generalization is ignored.[52]

No true Scotsman when a generalization is made true only when a


counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.[53]

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) act of pointing at


individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a
significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.[54]

False analogy an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.[55]

Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample,


fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid,
converse accident) basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.[56]

Inductive fallacy A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty


generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly
support it.

Misleading vividness involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is


an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.

Overwhelming exception an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications


that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the
initial statement might have led one to assume.[57]

Thought-terminating clich a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk


wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment,
move on to other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a clichenot a
point.
Red herring fallacies[edit]

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be,
misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any
logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real
arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.[58][59][60]

Red herring argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and
draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.

Ad hominem attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

Poisoning the well a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a


target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target
person says.[61]

Abusive fallacy a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of
the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument. [62]

Vacuous truth

Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) where an assertion is deemed


true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[63][64]

Appeal to accomplishment where an assertion is deemed true or false based


on the accomplishments of the proposer.[65]

Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) the conclusion is


supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some
course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.[66]

Appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the manipulation of


emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning. [67]

Appeal to fear a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made


by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side[68][69]

Appeal to flattery a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is


made due to the use of flattery to gather support.[70]

Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) an argument attempts to induce


pity to sway opponents.[71]

Appeal to ridicule an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument


in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.[72][73]

Appeal to spite a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is


made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing
party.[74]

Wishful thinking a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made


according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to
evidence or reason.[75]

Appeal to equality where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an


assumed pretense of equality.[76]

Appeal to motive where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the


motives of its proposer.

Appeal to nature wherein judgment is based solely on whether the subject of


judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.[77]

Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis/antiquitatis) where a proposal is claimed


to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.[78]

Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) supporting a conclusion because the


arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to
wealth.)[79]

Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) a conclusion supported solely


because it has long been held to be true.[80]

Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) supporting a conclusion because


the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).[81] (Sometimes taken
together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial
situation.)

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) a conclusion based on silence or


lack of contrary evidence.

Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) an


argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position. [82]

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument,


appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) where a proposition is claimed to be
true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.[83]

Association fallacy (guilt by association) arguing that because two things share a
property they are the same.[84]

Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) inferring why an argument is being used,


associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It
is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the
idea itself must also be a falsehood.[41]

Chronological snobbery where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was


commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held. [85][86]

Fallacy of relative privation dismissing an argument due to the existence of more


important, but unrelated, problems in the world.

Genetic fallacy where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or


someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.[87]

Judgmental language insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's


judgment.

Naturalistic fallacy (isought fallacy,[88] naturalistic fallacy[89]) claims about what


ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.

Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card) comparing an opponent or their


argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is
universally reviled. (See also Godwin's law)

Straw man an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[90]

Texas sharpshooter fallacy improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of


data.[91]

Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) the
argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be disregarded
because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position. [92]

Two wrongs make a right occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is
committed, another wrong will cancel it out.[93]

Conditional or questionable fallacies[edit]

Broken window fallacy an argument that disregards lost opportunity costs (typically
non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying
property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an
argument that states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but
disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent
on new shoes.[94]

Definist fallacy involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in
terms of the other.[95]

Naturalistic fallacy attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a


definition of the term "good" in terms of either one or more claims about natural
properties (sometimes also taken to mean the appeal to nature) or God's will.[77]

Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) asserting that a relatively
small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some
significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not
happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to

probability fallacy. (e.g. if person x does y then z would [probably] occur, leading to
q, leading to w, leading to e.)[96] This is also related to the Reductio ad absurdum.
COMMON FALLACIES IN REASONING
1. FAULTY CAUSE: (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes correlation or
association for causation, by assuming that because one thing follows
another it was caused by the other.
example: A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she
was involved in an automobile accident later that same afternoon.
example: The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level
has resulted in increased promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed
that the number of reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases)
was significantly higher for high schools that offered courses in sex
education than for high schools that did not.
2. SWEEPING GENERALIZATION: (dicto simpliciter) assumes that what is
true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most
instances will be true in all instances.
example: Muffin must be rich or have rich parents, because she belongs to
ZXQ, and ZXQ is the richest sorority on campus.
example: I'd like to hire you, but you're an ex-felon and statistics show that
80% of ex-felons recidivate.
3. HASTY GENERALIZATION: bases an inference on too small a sample, or
on an unrepresentative sample. Often, a single example or instance is used
as the basis for a broader generalization.
example: All of those movie stars are really rude. I asked Kevin Costner for
his autograph in a restaurant in Westwood the other evening, and he told
me to get lost.
example: Pit Bulls are actually gentle, sweet dogs. My next door neighbor
has one and his dog loves to romp and play with all the kids in the
neighborhood!
4. FAULTY ANALOGY: (can be literal or figurative) assumes that because two
things, events, or situations are alike in some known respects, that they are
alike in other unknown respects.
example: What's the big deal about the early pioneers killing a few Indians
in order to settle the West? After all, you can't make an omelette without
breaking a few eggs.
example: Banning "head" shops from selling drug paraphernalia in order to
curb drug abuse makes about as much sense as banning bikinis to reduce
promiscuity.

5. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: (argumentum ad ignorantiam) attempts to use


an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the
conclusion, i.e. "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right."
example: We can safely conclude that there is intelligent life elsewhere in
the galaxy, because thus far no one has been able to prove that there is not.
example: The new form of experimental chemotherapy must be working;
not a single patient has returned to complain.
6. BIFURCATION: (either-or, black or white, all or nothing fallacy) assumes
that two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, that is,
something is either a member of one or the other, but not both or some
third category.
example: Either you favor a strong national defense, or you favor allowing
other nations to dictate our foreign policy.
example: Its not TV. Its HBO.
7. FALSE DILEMMA: (a form of bifurcation) implies that one of two outcomes
is inevitable, and both have negative consequences.
example: Either you buy a large car and watch it guzzle away your
paycheck, or you buy a small car and take a greater risk of being injured or
killed in the event of an accident.
example: You can put your money in a savings account, in which case the
IRS will tax you on the interest, and inflation will erode the value of your
money, or you can avoid maintaining a savings account in which case you
will have nothing to fall back on in a financial emergency.
8. FAULTY SIGN: (also includes argument from circumstance) wrongly
assumes that one event or phenomenon is a reliable indicator or predictor of
another event or phenomenon.
example: the cars driving in the opposite direction have their lights on; they
must be part of a funeral procession.
example: That guy is wearing a Raiders jacket and baggy pants. Ill bet hes
a gang member.
9. DAMNING THE SOURCE: (ad hominem, sometimes called the genetic
fallacy) attempts to refute an argument by indicting the source of the
argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself.
example: There is no reason to listen to the arguments of those who oppose
school prayer, for they are the arguments of atheists!
example: The American Trial Lawyers Association favors of this piece of
legislation, so you know it has to be bad for ordinary citizens.
10. TU QUOQUE: (look who's talking or two wrongs make a right) pointing to
a similar wrong or error committed by another.

example: Gee, Mom and Dad, how can you tell me not to do drugs when you
both smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol?
example: The United States has no business criticizing the human rights
policies of the Third World nations, not as long as discrimination and
segregation continue to exist in the United States.
11. EQUIVOCATION: allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its
meaning during the course of the argument. The result is that the conclusion
of the argument is not concerned with the same thing as the premise(s).
example: Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is
rational.
example: No one who has the slightest acquaintance with science can
reasonably doubt that the miracles in the Bible actually took place. Every
year we witness countless new miracles in the form recombinant DNA,
micro-chips, organ transplants, and the like. (the word "miracle" does not
have the same meaning in each case)
12. BEGGING THE QUESTION: (petitio principii) entails making an argument,
the conclusion of which is based on an unstated or unproven assumption. In
question form, this fallacy is known as a COMPLEX QUESTION.
example: Abortion is murder, since killing a baby is an act of murder.
example: Have you stopped beating your wife?
13. TAUTOLOGY: (a sub-category of circular argument) defining terms or
qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove
the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement
of the conclusion in different words.
example: The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself
tells us so.
example: You are a disagreeable person and, if you disagree with me on
this, it will only further prove what a disagreeable person you are.
14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: (ipse dixit also called ad
verecundiam sometimes) attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly
admired or well-known (but not necessarily qualified) figure who supports
the conclusion being offered.
example: If it's good enough for (insert celebrity's name here), it's good
enough for me.
example: Laws against marijuana are plain silly. Why, Thomas Jefferson is
known to have raised hemp on his own plantation.
15. APPEAL TO TRADITION: (don't rock the boat or ad verecundiam) based
on the principle of "letting sleeping dogs lie". We should continue to do
things as they have been done in the past. We shouldn't challenge timehonored customs or traditions.

example: Of course we have to play "pomp and circumstance" at graduation,


because that's always been the song that is played.
example: Why do I make wine this way? Because my father made wine this
way, and his father made wine this way.
16. APPEAL TO THE CROWD: (ad populum or playing to the gallery) refers to
popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a
claim. Often the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for
the claim.
example: all I can say is that if living together is immoral, then I have plenty
of company.
example: Professor Windplenty's test was extremely unfair. Just ask anyone
who took it.
17. STRAW MAN: stating an opponent's argument in an extreme or
exaggerated form, or attacking a weaker, irrelevant portion of an opponent's
argument.
example: A mandatory seat belt law could never be enforced. You can't
issue citations to dead people.
example: What woman in her right mind could truly desire total equality with
men? No woman wants the right to be shot at in times of war, the right to
have to pay alimony, or the right to have to use the same restrooms as
men.
18. SLIPPERY SLOPE: (sometimes called a snowball argument or domino
theory) suggests that if one step or action is taken it will invariably lead to
similar steps or actions, the end results of which are negative or undesirable.
A slippery slope always assume a chain reaction of cause-effect events which
result in some eventual dire outcome.
example: If the Supreme Court allows abortion, next think you know they'll
allow euthanasia, and it won't be long before society disposes of all those
persons whom it deems unwanted or undesirable.
example: If I let one student interrupt my lecture with a question, then I'll
have to let others and, before long, there won't be any time left for my
lecture.
19. APPEALING TO EXTREMES: A fallacy very similar to slippery slope, which
involves taking an argumentative claim or assertion to its extreme, even
though the arguer does not advocate the extreme interpretation. The
difference between the two fallacies is that appealing to extremes does not
necessarily involve a sequence of causal connections.
example: Husband to ex-wife: Well, if you want to be completely fair about
dividing everything up, you should get one of my testicles and I should get
one of your breasts!

example: Debtor to creditor: Hey, you've already repossessed my car and


my television. Why don't you just draw a quart of blood or carve a pound of
flesh from my heart too?
20. HYPOTHESIS CONTRARY TO FACT: This fallacy consists of offering a
poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or
future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or
are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were
fact.
example: If you had only tasted the stewed snails, I'm sure you would have
liked them.
example: If Hitler had not invaded Russia and opened up two military fronts,
the Nazis would surely have won the war.
21. NON SEQUITAR: (literally means "does not follow") in a general sense
any argument which fails to establish a connection between the premises
and the conclusion may be called a non-sequitar. In practice, however, the
label non-sequitar tends to be reserved for arguments in which irrelevant
reasons are offered to support a claim.
example: I wore a red shirt when I took the test, so that is probably why I
did so well on the test.
example: Mr Boswell couldn't be the person who poisoned our cat, Truffles,
because when I used to take Truffles for walks he always smiled and said
"Hello" when we walked by.
22. RED HERRING: attempting to hide a weakness in an argument by
drawing attention away from the real issue. A red herring fallacy is thus a
diversionary tactic or an attempt to confuse or fog the issue being debated.
The name of the fallacy comes from the days of fox hunting, when a herring
was dragged across the trail of a fox in order to throw the dogs off the
scent.
example: accused by his wife of cheating at cards, Ned replies "Nothing I do
ever pleases you. I spent all last week repainting the bathroom, and then
you said you didn't like the color."
example: There's too much fuss and concern about saving the environment.
We can't create an Eden on earth. And even if we could, remember Adam
and Eve got bored in the Garden of Eden anyway!
23. INCONSISTENCY: advancing an argument that is self-contradictory, or
that is based on mutually inconsistent premises.
Example: A used car salespersons says, "Hey, you cant trust those other car
salesman. Theyll say anything to gt you to buy a car from them."
Example: A parent has just read a child the story of Cinderella. The child
asks, "If the coach, and the footmen, and the beautiful clothes all turned

back into the pumpkin, the mice, and the rags, then how come the glass
slipper didnt change back too?"

You might also like